Cited by 88Telemedicine and Telehealth ImplementationMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationElectronic Health Records Systems

Use of eHealth technologies to enable the implementation of musculoskeletal models of care: evidence and practice

Open access
Slater, Helen, Dear, Blake F., Merolli, Mark A., Li, Linda C., Briggs, Andrew M.·2016·Best Practice & Research Clinical Rheumatology

Abstract

Musculoskeletal (MSK) conditions are the second leading cause of morbidity-related burden of disease globally. EHealth is a potentially critical factor that enables the implementation of accessible, sustainable and more integrated MSK models of care (MoCs). MoCs serve as a vehicle to drive evidence into policy and practice through changes at a health system, clinician and patient level. The use of eHealth to implement MoCs is intuitive, given the capacity to scale technologies to deliver system and economic efficiencies, to contribute to sustainability, to adapt to low-resource settings and to mitigate access and care disparities. We follow a practice-oriented approach to describing the 'what' and 'how' to harness eHealth in the implementation of MSK MoCs. We focus on the practical application of eHealth technologies across care settings to those MSK conditions contributing most substantially to the burden of disease, including osteoarthritis and inflammatory arthritis, skeletal fragility-associated conditions and persistent MSK pain.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.berh.2016.08.006

Cites

100 of 100 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Online technologies have been shown to be efficient and cost-effective in managing long-term health conditions such as hypertension, diabetes, anxiety and depression at the population level with a high degree of fidelity.

    “Online technologies have been shown to be efficient and cost-effective in managing long-term health conditions such as hypertension, diabetes, anxiety and depression at the population-level with a high degree of fidelity.22”

    From Clinical and cost-effectiveness of an online-delivered group-based pain management programme in improving pain-related disability for people with persistent pain - Protocol for a non-inferiority randomised controlled trial (iSelf-help trial) (2021) · cites this paper as [22]

    The Online pain care interventions section reports that internet-delivered pain-management programs can be cost-effective and improve some patient-reported outcomes. It does not establish efficient, cost-effective management of hypertension, diabetes, anxiety and depression at the population level with high fidelity; it notes inconsistent clinical improvements and few evaluations in large cohorts. No page number was supplied for these passages. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

1 retracted

Flagged first, then by citations

3 of the 103 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Slater, H., Dear, B. F., Merolli, M. A., Li, L. C., & Briggs, A. M.
Affiliations
  • Curtin University (AU)
  • Macquarie University (AU)
  • The University of Melbourne (AU)
  • University of British Columbia (CA)
Corresponding author
Slater, Helen
Venue
Best Practice & Research Clinical Rheumatology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2016-06
Volume
30
Issue
3
Pages
483-502
ISSN
1521-6942 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2555510292
Cited by
88
References
103
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 17 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 1
FWCI
0.84
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Best Practice & Research Clinical Rheumatology (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • eSpace (Curtin University) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Swinburne figshare (Swinburne University of Technology) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Swinburne figshare (Swinburne University of Technology)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Telemedicine and Telehealth Implementation
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Electronic Health Records Systems
Keywords
eHealth technologies, implementation of care models, musculoskeletal disorders, osteoarthritis, inflammatory arthritis, bone fragility, chronic musculoskeletal pain, health system integration, health care disparities, resource-limited settings
MeSH terms
Delivery of Health Care, Humans, Musculoskeletal Diseases, Telemedicine

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review